joejohnston ● us

On Monday, we scampered down the road of women’s groups trying to act as censors.  In that post, it was noted that the arguments for censoring were not only flawed, but bordered on mere excuses that would not hold up unless you were committed to their point of view.  Another quote to bring home the censorship point needs to be discussed.  In its letter to CBS, the Women/s Media Center additionally said,,

By offering one of the most coveted advertising spots of the year to an anti-equality, anti-choice, homophobic organization, CBS is aligning itself with a political stance that will damage its reputation, alienate viewers, and discourage consumers from supporting its shows and advertisers.

There are a number of problems with this statement.  First, there is an assumption that the state of the economy hasn’t effected ad revenues.  It certainly has and it isn’t clear that this ad spot had a long line of advertisers clamoring for it.  CBS actually had to do a lot of negotiating to sell all of the spots this year.

Remember ad hominem attacks.  Without seeing the ad, many assumptions are being made based on perception of Focus on the Family.  Anti-equality:  Wondering what that means.  Does it mean that the women’s group has a stand on the egalitarian vs. completementarian interpretation of gender role as taught in the Bible?  More likely not.  Anti-choice:  Probably accurate to a degree, but anti-abortion would be more accurate. Just as pro-abortion is clearly the point since many pro-abort groups really only favor one choice (pro-abortion).   Homophobic:  Does the use of that word imply that Focus is afraid of homosexuals?  It might, but it probably has more to do with their opposition to the normalization of same-sex relationships.  In all cases, this women’s group thinks stringing these adjectives together builds a case against Focus that almost everyone agrees on (everyone they hang out with anyway) and should compel CBS to do the only reasonable thing – censor.

CBS is running an ad…period. They’re not really aligning themselves to anything except ad revenue.  Maybe these women’s groups should pony up $2.5 million for their own ad and stop whining.  Or, just hit the mute button as I said Monday. 

The rest of the quote is a not-too-veiled-threat of dire consequences to CBS.  A recent Gallup Poll, however, has shown that it is more likely these consequences would impact CBS if they pulled the ad. (More Americans “Pro-Life” Than “Pro-Choice” for First Time).  51% of those polled by Gallup identified themselves as pro-life compared to only 42% identifying themselves as pro-choice.  So, assuming reaction to the ad follows these characterizations, CBS will certainly upset someone, but it is unlikely that running this ad will bring down the company.

If you look at the bar graph (from the Gallup article), you might detect some indication of why pro-abortion groups are so upset with the Tebow ad – even though they haven’t seen it.   Toward the right (2008 to 2009) the bars make a fairly obvious X shape.  That X is caused by pro-life reportees climbing from 44% to 51% and pro-choice dropping from 50% to 42%. This is quite a different story from the same poll in 1996 where pro-choicers vastly outnumbered pro-lifers.

Further, a poll specifically about CBS’s decision to run the ad shows that 62% of the respondents support the decision. (Poll: 62% of Respondents Say CBS Is Right to Allow Tim Tebow Ad in Super Bowl)  Seems like those dire consequences of viewer backlash aren’t going to happen.

Another interesting development in the discussion is the attempt to reduce the argument to “that’s not fair, CBS.”  A startup male-to-male dating service with the charming name of ManCrunch and a rejected credit application is claiming discrimination.  The largely implied juxtaposing of the two ads to prove CBS’s nefarious nature doesn’t quite hold up.  ManCrunch even mischaracterizes their ad as an “advocacy ad” to put their rejection directly up against the acceptance of the Tebow ad.

So these two guys clad in football jerseys are sitting on the loveseat reacting to a play in the game.  Right before the magical moment, the one guy tells the other guy “You suck.”  Meaning – oh I hope meaning – you and your team suck. The next thing you know, they’re “making out” to the bewilderment of guy number three.  The ad could be described as stupid, demeaning to grownups who are gay (in other words, not arrested adolescents), and essentially,very unlikely.

Chances are that this start-up company submitted the ad knowing it would be rejected.  It’s a great plan.  You don’t really have to come up with $2.5 million cash (remember that credit report), but you get some free publicity and scores of people look at the ad on the internet.  Martin Franks, an executive at CBS, told Reuters

: A whole cottage industry has grown up out of trying to make use of network turndowns. . . . They’ve found a loophole in an otherwise well-intentioned process.

CBS rejected a godaddy.com ad which had a lot of “gay stereotypes” (Lola).  Apparently GoDaddy tries to get at least one ad a year rejected.  Perhaps CBS is not wanting to show gays in a stereotypic light in both commercials.  Far from being an anti-gay move, CBS is trying not to offend via stereotyping.

There’s actually no end to the swirling stories.  One pundit thinks this one 30-second ad might bring down the mighty Super Bowl ad franchise (Will Taking the ‘Funny’ Out of Super Bowl Ads Drive Away Viewers?).  A CBS sportscaster also whined about taking the fun out of “the holy day of Super Bowl.”  The Tebow ad is being routinely called an anti-abortion ad even though no one’s seen it.  I wish we could get this much spin about sex and violence everywhere in the media.

A women’s rights lawyer has pointed out abortion is and was illegal in the Philippines.  In a statement directed toward CBS, she questions how the Tebow story could possibly be valid and indicates the real possibility of FCC or FTC intervention for false advertising (EXCLUSIVE VIDEO INTERVIEW: Gloria Allred Threatens CBS For Allowing Tim Tebow Anti-Abortion Super Bowl Ad).   This one is interesting, but it presumes no possibility of travel away from the Philippines for a legal abortion to take place.  Surely, Pam Tebow could have returned to her home in the U.S. if it were her choice.

Probably the most amusing outgrowth of the Super Bowl ad controversy relates to one theory why the ManCrunch ad was rejected.  Not anti-gay, too gay.  Dan Neil in the LA Times business section has his own theory: (No Coming Out Party for Super Bowl)

There’s another intriguing possibility that links “Lola” (the rejected godaddy ad) to the Mancrunch.com ad. The subtext in both is that football itself is, well, kind of gay.

I realize that what I’m about to say may ruin my chances of getting into Canton. But American football strikes me as a pretty homoerotic spectacle, beginning with the hypertrophic masculinity of the male form in tight pants and huge shoulder pads and ending with the most undignified gesture in all of sports, the hands-between-the-cheeks snap of the ball. Hike, indeed.

The pats on the fanny, the showering together, the endlessly rolling around in the dirt. All things considered, I think figure skating is more butch. This is not exactly a novel observation, of course. (Remember the gay gridiron-hero-turned-bodyguard character played by Alex Karras in “Victor Victoria.”) And if I were one of football’s guardians, I might be a little touchy about it. Perhaps that is at the root of the ads’ dismissal.

It really has become fun to read all the spin.  I bet, if they chose, Focus on the Family could pull the ad, save $2.8 million, put it on their website, and get almost as many people going to look at it as would see it during the Super Bowl.

–Joe Johnston Sr.

Tags: abortion in the Philippines, adjectives, CBS, censors, egalitarian, Focus, Focus on the Family, football, Gallup, gender role, guy, Martin Fr, Martin Franks, Monday, normalization, number, point, political stance, Poll, pro abortion, quote, s media, same sex relationships, Super Bowl, Than, Tim Tebow, year
Filed under: Rants About the News